Posted on 08/06/2013 10:21:57 AM PDT by DannyTN
No, Why would you think I agreed with everything in that article, after I specifically in post 1 said I didn't.
I don't agree with their assertion that you quoted, that using fossil fuel endangers the lives of poor people or that the rich live a separate life. We have a continuum of rich and poor in America and the same rules largely apply to both.
But I do however agree with some of their criticisms of Libertarianism, especially the sentence before the section you quoted which read:
"But libertarians have to reject the most important forms of community because these organizations — familial, local, national, religious — are not voluntary organizations, but are considered coercive."
That is a key conflict and key problem with Libertarians. They assume self interest is always in the nation's interest. And it's not. The governmental rules are important, particularly in the area of international trade. But libertarians disdain government to the point that they are unwilling to support almost any government rules.
Oh they "might" agree with a rule that says Americans can't sell information on nuclear weapons. But that's about where they draw the line.
Our founding fathers gave authority to Congress to place tariffs and negotiate international trade, but Libertarians usually throw that out the window and think that Friedman's free trade would result in a wealthy America, if they could just get rid of American taxes and regulations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Free trade is indeed a race to the bottom. And the country with the lowest wages, lowest safety standards, lowest environmental standard, will win.
We've decimated many of our industries and have a 25% unemployment rate and over 100 million Americans on food stamps. And they can't recognize that it's due to Friedman's free trade ideas.
I agree with you. Without our use of fossil fuels most of the poor people across the world would have already starved of died of disease.
I agree with you. Without our use of fossil fuels most of the poor people across the world would have already starved of died of disease.
I agree with you that people and companies act in their own self interest. However even Freidman's quote was that they act in their own self-interest within the rules. Sometimes the rules are important. Sometimes individual self interest doesn't coincide with National interest.
It's the Prisoner's Dilemma from game theory. The prisoner is better off if he testifies against his crime partners, unless of course none of them testify. But he can't know all of his partners won't testify, therefore he takes the deal and testifies.
The company that hires illegals will drive the law abiding businesses out of business. Unless government enforces the rules.
The company that off-shores to China will gain market share and short-term bonuses. And the other companies will be driven out of business or forced to do the same. Eventually China will copy the businesses, but the choice is to take the short term profit or go out of business. Only government rules can change this behavior.
I agree with you that people and companies act in their own self interest. However even Freidman's quote was that they act in their own self-interest within the rules. Sometimes the rules are important. Sometimes individual self interest doesn't coincide with National interest.
It's the Prisoner's Dilemma from game theory. The prisoner is better off if he testifies against his crime partners, unless of course none of them testify. But he can't know all of his partners won't testify, therefore he takes the deal and testifies.
The company that hires illegals will drive the law abiding businesses out of business. Unless government enforces the rules.
The company that off-shores to China will gain market share and short-term bonuses. And the other companies will be driven out of business or forced to do the same. Eventually China will copy the businesses, but the choice is to take the short term profit or go out of business. Only government rules can change this behavior.
I agree, amoral does not necessarily mean immoral.
Most of the warpage that has occurred is due to the creation of a central bank, the Federal Reserve. The political class moved finagling the markets to a second hand source so the politicians couldn’t be blamed for it. There is no road back now. The bureaucrat class is too large we are headed for collapse and/or totalitarianism, likely both wither simultaneously or in succession. It cannot be avoided. It could have been avoided or at least would not have come so soon but for three “Progressive” Constitutional Amendments, the 16th, the 17th, and the 19th, and then, of course, that great Progressive institution, The Federal Reserve.
So are the American laws preventing transfer of nuclear technology to our enemies evil? Are you against them?
Where do you draw the line? I'd agree excessive rules are evil. Our country started with a set of rules called the Constitution. I'd say many rules are necessary. And that doesn't make all rules evil or socialist.
Libertarians all too often seem to be arguing for no rules at all.
"markets, being amoral, are necessarily immoral."
That is nonsensical. Something neutral cannot "necessarily" be something non-neutral.
"But what happens when one man's pleasure harms another?"
Then they do not engage in a market exchange.
"How long can a liberal democratic society (which relies upon cooperation, mutual interdependence, and shared sacrifice) exist alongside a purely capitalistic system (which relies purely upon self-interest)?"
Liberal democracy is not some left-wing construct. The term refers the standard western form of government (democratic republic). Liberal democracies have been implemented with laissez faire free-market economies and Scandinavian socialist economies. There is no requirement for a liberal democratic society to rely upon cooperation, mutual interdependence, and shared sacrifice. There is a requirement to cooperate with the law, and there is a requirement to pay taxes to fund the government, and there may be a need for military service, but none of those specific things has anything to do with the type of economic systems.
"The problem is that greed and self-interest are not the exclusive, or even primary, human motivation. We know that soldiers jump on grenades to protect other soldiers. We know that John McCain chose to spend four years in the Hanoi Hilton rather than violate the Code of Conduct for Prisoners of War. We know that Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire rather than face the harassment of police."
The vast majority of libertarians have never said greed and self-interest are the only motivators for people in all transactions. They are motivators in financial transactions. However, let's assume the statement is true. The problem is, pride has intrinsic value. Love has intrinsic value. And it is greedy to keep one's pride. People are greedy to keep those that they love. That is what the author misses.
This guy interned with the libertarian Reason Foundation and John Stossell, and the conservative Hudson Institute, but blogs from an extreme left-wing anti-capitalist perspective. I can only assume his interning with right of center and libertarian groups was akin to Snowden taking a job at the NSA. He went in with ulterior motives.
His comments about libertarianism are tired old canards.
He does not support his claims about the Tea Party:
While Friedman was at least consistent enough to despise all government programs, the Tea Party wants to protect a few: the ones they benefit from. They excitedly adopt his "starve the beast" approach to government spending, but also gobble up government resources.
Where is the evidence?
And here is another nonsensical statement:
Libertarian populism is the old supply-side garbage ...
That is really two statements:
"Libertarian populism is supply-side economics ... "
Supporting evidence please.
"Supply-side economics is garbage."
Expand and support this thesis, or shut up.
This guy has positioned himself as a centrist or moderate. However, he is a left-wing nihilist. The nihilism he ascribes to libertarians is projection, nothing more. He has redefined centrism and moderation far away from the center in an attempt to make his unformed ideas relevant.
Lucky you!
Libertarians all too often seem to be arguing for no rules at all.
I've read a fair selection of libertarian thinkers, and I can't think of a single thing a single one of them has written that could be fairly characterized in that way. Which did you read, that lead you to that conclusion?
Or were you simply reading some statist's strawman attack?
I’m going mostly by the libertarian’s comments on Free Republic.
I’m going mostly by the libertarian’s comments on Free Republic.
Ask people from both sides of the isle “what should the minimum wage be?” and you get the wrong answer most of the time.
SEAN MCELWEE | The Moderate Voice
Solving the Student Loan Crisis is Only the First Step
Patent Trolls Aren’t the Problem, Patents Are
Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Face the Death Penalty?
Congress Must Address the Student Loan Crisis
What the Farm Bill Really Means
End the Death Penalty
A Citizen’s Guide to Debating About Inequality
American’s Awful, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Prison System
The Supreme Court Overstates Racial Progress
As for patent reform, here is what Bill Gates had to say:
""Thank god for commercial software," Gates told an audience member who asked about the disconnect between Microsoft's historically proprietary nature and all the charitable work Gates now does.
Intellecual property in developed countries pays salaries and lets software companies, pharmaceutical companies and others actually be able to invest in the innovation that helps improve our world, he explained. Then, when organizations like the Gates Foundation are doing work in undeveloped countries, pharmaceutical, IT and agribusiness companies can afford to give away their work for free. (A skeptic might say that's like robbing from the not-so-rich to give to the poor.)
"Anybody who thinks getting rid of [patent law] would be better ... I can tell you, that's crazy," Gates said. "My view is it's working very well."
“But I do however agree with some of their criticisms of Libertarianism, especially the sentence before the section you quoted which read:
‘But libertarians have to reject the most important forms of community because these organizations — familial, local, national, religious — are not voluntary organizations, but are considered coercive.’”
That is definitely not true of Friedman. Take a look at this video, especially his answer to the third question which addresses exactly that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc&list=FLFKwppHGs4cVYlrcBZfuZxg&index=1
And that is not true of most libertarians as well - that’s closer to Marxism. The guy that wrote that article is a leftist ignoramus.
You are assuming it's simply subsidies. It's not.
The better question to ask farmers is "Would you support removing government from farming, including price supports?"
As a retired farmer, I can assure you that there would be a resounding YES!
Ever heard of EPA, OSHA, FDA, and any number of other alphabet agencies? They ride roughshod over farmers just as they do everywhere, and removing them would bring such a sigh of relief to the bank accounts of farmers everywhere they wouldn't even notice the missing subsidies.
The indolents' natural function is to die...
The “minimum wage” should be a contract between the employer and the employee on the amount that employee will trade his labors for, no matter what the amount.
If populists are those who oppose an elite in the name of common or ordinary people, then libertarianism and populism aren't necessarily opposites. You can see the two tendencies at work in tax revolts and the Tea Party.
Lately, the phrase "libertarian populism" has been in the news a lot to mean a libertarian politics that opposes crony capitalism and bigness in business. Depending on just what the phrase is applied to it might be an oxymoron or it might not.
I don't actually see Milton Friedman being "hailed" by the Tea Party or by "libertarian populists" of either sort. Maybe it would be better if he were, maybe not, but since Friedman's death I don't see him having much influence outside academia.
The article isn't worth much, except to stimulate rants. McElwee doesn't have much understanding of economics or libertarianism, and judging from his citation of G.A Cohen, he appears to be an actual socialist or Marxist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.